Assessment Task
\nIFN521 Foundations of Decision
\nScience
\nSemester 1 2023
\nAssessment 2 \u2013 Knowledge and
\nName A presentation of theory related to a selected cognitive information process
\nDue End of Week 12 (with an essential component (Part A) presented to teaching staff in week 9, and formally submitted at the end of week)
\n9) (refer to Canvas for exact due dates)
\nType Group-work based \u2013 Groups of 2
\nWeight 40% (indicative weighting)
\nDeliver Written document (Portable Document Format – Best Help Writing My 99 Papers\u2014owl Essay Samples)
\nSubmit PDF via Canvas
\nSkills Task
\nRationale and Description
\nEvidence-based practice is an important aspect of Decision Science. In this assessment, you will create and conduct a hypothesis-based experiment involving the collection of data from human participants via crowdsourcing.
\nMore specifically, this assessment involves researching human decision making by developing a crowdsourced research design, running the research design and writing a report based on the findings. This will demonstrate your ability to understand some of the relevant literature in the area, identify a method to learn more about how humans make decisions through experimentation, as well as collect and critically analyse human data.
\nYou will use your knowledge and skills gained from the workshops and materials presented in the course, and apply them to a research problem. You will use your unique knowledge from the data you collect to provide a research report explaining what you have found, as well as suggest current or future technological innovations which may implement your findings.
\nLearning Outcomes
\nA successful completion of this task will demonstrate:
\n1. An ability to formulate a clear hypothesis associated with a given research topic, and justify the hypothesis by means of a concise analysis of relevant literature.
\n2. An ability to design an ethically sound experimental protocol to appropriately test the hypothesis.
\n3. An understanding of how experimentation can inform future innovations in decision support technologies.
\n4. An understanding of how humans make decisions while interacting with information.
\n5. An ability to analyse experimental data in order to determine whether the hypothesis is supported by the experimental data.
\n6. Effective written communication in the form of a research report which documents the experiment.
\n7. An understanding of requirements to conduct a study according to ethical guidelines.
\n8. An ability to work effectively in a group and manage equal contribution across team members
\nEssential Elements
\nYou must submit a research report with the following sections:
\n1. Title
\n2. Abstract
\n3. Introduction
\n4. Method
\n5. Results
\n6. Discussion
\n7. References
\n8. Statement of Contribution
\nYou are required to write the report as a team, and will be asked to provide evidence of this in the form of a statement of contribution. In writing your report, you must convince the reader that:
\n1. You have identified a justifiable hypothesis to address your research topic;
\n2. You have developed a feasible, practical methodology for testing the hypothesis, using contemporary tools and techniques and reasonable resources;
\n3. You understand the implications of your analysis of the data and effectively communicate your understanding in the context of the research problem; and
\n4. Your study adds value by identifying novel implications.
\nIn order to convince the reader of these points your argumentation must be:
\n\u2022 Clear \u2014 Your writing must be easily understandable by a lay reader, avoiding uncommon terminology and abbreviations.
\n\u2022 Concise \u2014 You must express your ideas efficiently, so that key points are not obscured by irrelevant material.
\n\u2022 Coherent \u2014 Your arguments and the conclusions you draw must be structured logically.
\n\u2022 Convincing \u2014 The overall \u201cstory\u201d you tell must be compelling and believable.
\nInformation & links to resources to help you with writing research reports will be provided in the \u2018detailed instructions\u2019 section below.
\nEthics
\nPlease note that, as your research projects use human subjects, they are subject to ethical guidelines for human research. Research projects conducted in this unit are covered by ethics approval number xxxxxxxxxx. As such, the guidelines set by this approval must be followed, and any divergence from this will be considered as a breach. The teaching team\u2019s approval of your methodology is therefore essential before commencing data collection. The teaching staff will ascertain whether your proposed methodology meets ethical requirements and will approve or reject it. If you commence any form of data collection from human subjects (whether on the prolific or any other platform, through social media, friends, etc.) without having your methodology approved by teaching staff, this will result in an automatic fail for this assignment.
\nMarking Paper Writing
\nThis assessment is criteria referenced, meaning that your grade for the assessment will be given based on your ability to satisfy key criteria. This means that you need to ensure you are making your knowledge and understanding clear to the person marking your assignment with respect to each of the criteria. Study the attached \u2018Paper Writing Sheet\u2019 and to make sure you fully understand what is expected for each of the assessment criteria.
\n.
\nYou will not receive marks or percentages for this assessment. Instead, you will receive an overall grade (e.g., pass – 4, high distinction – 7) based on the extent to which you meet the assessment criteria. The weighting of each criteria is provided in the criteria sheet.
\nFeedback
\nEssential step (contributing to Part A): You will supply a statement of your hypothesis, summary of your analysis of the literature to justify this hypothesis, and associated research design to test the hypothesis. These will be presented to the teaching staff during Week 9.
\nThis will enable the teaching staff to provide formative feedback, enabling you to:
\n(a) understand where you can make improvements to ensure your experiment passes
\nEthics Approval, and
\n(b) spread your effort more evenly through the duration of this assignment.
\nIf the material you submit at the end of Week 9 does not pass Ethics Approval, you will be provided with data from an already conducted experiment to complete the assignment. In such a case, your final grade will be affected based on the criteria associated with experimental design and ethics. It is therefore highly recommended that you make use of opportunities for formative feedback as described above.
\nGroupwork
\n– – Note: You are required to perform this assignment in groups of two people. Groups of three or more are not permitted. Only in exceptional circumstances will students be allowed to individually attempt the assignment. You are responsible for forming groups starting from Week 7, and finalised by the beginning of the Week 8 tutorial.
\nTeaching staff will assist in facilitating the initial stages of group formation, but ultimately, forming groups is your responsibility. If you are struggling to form a group, please use Slack to find another student to form a group. If you have not formed a group prior to the tutorial in Week 8, and have not received permission to complete the assignment as an individual (in special circumstances), you will not receive approval to conduct the experiment, and this will affect grades in criteria associated with design and ethics (see rubric below).
\nDetailed Instructions
\nIn order to help you achieve an excellent result in this assignment, please follow these steps: Part A – Weeks 7-9
\nStep 1 \u2013 Develop a preliminary hypothesis. In Week 7\u2019s workshop, you will develop a preliminary hypothesis using a template.
\nStep 2 \u2013 Begin literature review: You will find and analyse literature to justify your hypothesis. – – Note that your analysis of the literature may require the hypothesis to be revised.
\nIn order to focus your analysis of the literature to relevant sources, select 6-8 references that address the following question:
\nWhat evidence exists to justify why I would expect the hypothesis to be true?
\nStep 3 \u2013 Design experiment (with ethics documents): In Week 8\u2019s tutorial, you will develop an appropriate experimental design to test your hypothesis including one or two Google forms including stimuli with questions which will be used to collect the experimental data.
\nThis, along with completed ethics documents that will be made available on Canvas, will be presented in consultation by week 9 at the latest and will form part of your formative assessment.
\nStep 4 \u2013 Present hypothesis, justification, experiment, and ethics documents to the teaching staff for formative feedback: Create a presentation comprising 2 slides: The first slide contains a statement of your hypothesis using the correct format. The second slide contains3-4 dot points with references that summarize the justification of yout hypothesis.
\nPresent your slides as well as your stimuli with questions (in Google Form(\/s)) and Ethics documents to teaching staff in Week 9 (either during the live lecture or tutorial (A registration form will be provided to schedule your presentation). – – Note, you will have around 7 minutes for this, so you need to be prepared and succinct in your presentation in order to receive the most helpful feedback.
\nIf you would like feedback on your experiment prior to Week 9, you can contact the teaching staff on Slack, or receive feedback during the tutorial in weeks 7 and 8. The latest date for receiving feedback from the teaching staff is the tutorial in Week 9.
\nStep 5 \u2013 Submit the experiment and ethics documents for final approval: Integrate the feedback supplied by appropriately editing your presentation, Google form(\/s) or ethics documents, and submit via Canvas for final Ethics Approval by the end of Week 9 (see Canvas for exact due date). This is an essential element in order for the teaching staff to approve your experiment. – – Note that, this is the final chance to have your design approved. If it is not approved, you will not be able to conduct your experiment (per step 6). Instead,we will provide you with a pre-designed study with results that you can use to complete your assignment for steps 7 and 8. This will impact the grade awarded in the \u201cExperimental Design and Ethics\u201d criterion in your final submission.
\nFinal submission for Part A DUE at the end of Week 9 (see Canvas for exact date)
\nPart B – Weeks 10-12
\nStep 6 \u2013 Upload your experiment onto the Prolific crowdsourcing platform: In order to do this, you will be given a username and password for a Prolific account with a certain amount of funds in order to pay participants from whom you will collect the data. Human Written Academic Papers – Guides will be provided in order to upload your experiment and collect the data.
\nStep 7 \u2013 Homework help: Write Online Essays Papers Homework for you – Analyse data: Once the data has been collected, you will analyse the data in order to determine if the data supports your hypothesis. Resources are provided to help you determine which analysis method to use.
\nStep 8 \u2013 Write research report: The final step involves writing a research report which documents your experiment. The required sections of the report are as follows.
\nWritten Report \u2013 Essential Requirements:
\n1. Title. A concise, informative title for your experiment, which lists the group members in alphabetical order together with students numbers.
\n2. Abstract. A half-page summary of your entire research report. The summary concisely describes the following points:
\n\u2022 What you did
\n\u2022 Why you did it
\n\u2022 How you did it
\n\u2022 What you found
\n3. Introduction. This will be one to one and a half (1 \u2013 1.5) pages long and describes the following points:
\n\u2022 A short background leading to why you would expect humans to make information-based decisions in a certain way, given your research topic
\ni. Use 6-8 relevant references\/citations to justify your hypothesis*
\n\u2022 State the research topic and hypothesis of your experiment.
\n4. Methodology. This describes your experiment in enough detail for another researcher to replicate it, and includes:
\n\u2022 A summary of participants (e.g., describe who participants were, how many, etc.)
\n\u2022 Materials used (e.g., describe what the participants saw) \u2022 Experimental procedure (e.g., describe what the participants did)
\n5. Results. This describes the results of your experiment, and includes:
\n\u2022 – Summary of data in table\/graphical form
\n\u2022 Analysis method used and how it was applied to analyse the data
\n\u2022 Superior Paper Help – Outline of the results from the data analysis
\n6. Discussion. This will be one to one and a half (1 \u2013 1.5) pages long. This places your results back into the context you gave in your introduction, and demonstrates what your experiments has found, including:
\n\u2022 Whether the results confirm or disconfirm your hypothesis and what that implies for your research topic
\n\u2022 How these results relate to your previously referenced sources (from introduction)
\n\u2022 Limitations of your study
\n\u2022 Implications of your study for decision support technologies (e.g., search engines, recommendation systems, dashboards, etc.)
\n7. References. This is the list of all literature referenced in the body of your report. All references should be in APA Paper Writing Service by Expert Writers Pro Paper Help: Online Research Essay Help both in the body of the report and in the reference list.
\n8. Statement of Contribution. You will agree on your degree of contribution, which you will include in writing at the end of your document. This will be in the following format:
\n\u2022 Experimental design: Student 1 (%), Student 2 (%); Analysis: Student 1 (%),
\nStudent 2 (%); Introduction: Student 1 (%) and Student 2 (%); Methodology:
\nStudent 1 (%), Student 2 (%); Results: Student 1 (%), Student 2 (%); Discussion: Student 1 (%), Student 2 (%)
\n9. Appendix – Top Uni Researchers Bridge Essays UK Writings Help For Your Assignments. In this section, provide the table(\/s) of your raw results.
\n* – – Note that these references must be cited in the body of your introduction and listed in a reference list, rather than just being added as a bibliography\/reading list at the end.
\nFor information on how to write high quality reports, please see the following links (note, however, that we do not require you to write a complete introduction section, so please continue to refer back to the above for the essential requirements):
\n\u2022 https:\/\/www.citewrite.qut.edu.au\/write\/empiricalarticle.jsp
\n\u2022 http:\/\/www.discoveringstatistics.com\/docs\/writinglabreports.pdf
\nClarification
\nIf you require any clarification on the requirements of the assessment, as outlined in this document, please ensure you speak to teaching staff during workshop times or via Slack, as soon as possible to ensure you do not fall behind.
\nPlease note, this clarification applies to assessment requirements as well as general questions about logistics involved in running crowdsourced studies. We cannot provide any specific feedback on your research or provide you with specific help which may provide you with an unfair advantage. In addition, if you need any help with writing, please see HiQ for assistance.
\nResources
\nIn addition to the links provided above and the preparatory materials and workshops included in this course, we will provide a \u201cCrowdsource Human Written Academic Papers – Guide\u201d, which can be accessed on Canvas, and consists of a text-based and video-based guide to crowdsourcing. We will also provide a mandatory ethics training video that you will need to watch before being approved to begin collection of data from human participants. Please ensure you read and watch these resources before asking any questions about how to conduct crowdsourcing for this assignment.
\nQuestions
\nQuestions relating to the assessment should be directed initially to the teaching staff during the workshops and consultation times. The teaching staff may address these for the benefit of the whole class.
\nIf you need to clarify something outside of these times, please direct your queries to the Slack team. A fellow student may have the same question and may benefit from the answer. Additionally, another student may know the answer to your question and be able to answer it at times when the teaching staff are unavailable (i.e. outside business hours). Teaching staff will monitor and respond to queries on the Slack channel, however, will only be able to do this during normal business hours.
\nPaper Writing Sheet \u2013 Assessment 2 Experimental Presentation of a Theory \u2013 IFN521 Foundations of Decision Science
\n7 \u2013 High Distinction 6 \u2013 Distinction 5 \u2013 Credit 4 \u2013 Pass 3 \u2013 Marginal Fail 2 – Fail 1 \u2013 Low Fail
\nUse of literature as supporting evidence (24% of total grade) \u2013 The ability to:
\n\u2022 draw on authoritative sources as needed to support a hypothesis and methodology (and demonstrate research capability by finding the majority of sources outside the unit set reading list)
\n\u2022 analyse, critique and evaluate literature sources
\n\u2022 understand the significance of the literature to the topic
\n7 6 5 4 3 2 1
\n\u2022 Citations are provided to support all significant points in the argument. \u2022 Hypothesis and methodology are very clearly and logically informed by the citations and argument provided \u2022 All sources are consistently relevant (to the research topic), current and authoritative.
\n\u2022 Referencing is thorough and consistently accurate. \u2022 Excellent level of critical analysis \u2022 Citations are provided to support almost all significant points in the argument.
\n\u2022 Hypothesis and methodology are clearly and logically informed by the citations and argument provided \u2022 Sources are mostly relevant (to the research topic), current and authoritative.
\n\u2022 – – One or two insignificant errors apparent in the referencing.
\n\u2022 High level of critical analysis
\n\u2022 Citations are provided to support all but one or two significant points in the argument.
\n\u2022 Hypothesis and methodology are mostly clearly and logically informed by the citations and argument provided \u2022 Sources are mostly relevant (to the research topic), current and authoritative.
\n\u2022 Referencing is slightly inconsistent or contains a few minor errors.
\n\u2022 Sound level of critical analysis \u2022 Citations are provided, but a few significant points in the argument lack supporting evidence.
\n\u2022 Hypothesis and methodology are somewhat clearly and logically informed by the citations and argument provided
\n\u2022 Half the sources are relevant (to the research topic), current and authoritative.
\n\u2022 Several noticeable referencing errors.
\n\u2022 Satisfactory level of critical analysis \u2022 Limited use of citations to support key parts of the argument.
\n\u2022 It is substantially unclear how hypothesis and methodology has been informed by the citations and argument provided
\n\u2022 A minority of sources are relevant (to the research topic) but may not be authoritative. \u2022 Some significant referencing errors. \u2022 Some evidence of
\ncritical analysis \u2022 Inadequate citations to support the bulk of the argument.
\n\u2022 There is scant connection between the argument and citations used and the hypothesis and methodology \u2022 Sources are mostly irrelevant and\/or not authoritative.
\n\u2022 Many significant referencing errors.
\n\u2022 Little evidence of critical analysis \u2022 No attempt to use the
\nliterature to support argument
\n\u2022 The hypothesis and methodology do not appear to have been informed by the citations
\nand argument provided \u2022 Literature cited is irrelevant to the arguments.
\n\u2022 Referencing is absent or erratic.
\n\u2022 No evidence of critical analysis
\nHypothesis (10% of total grade) \u2013 Ability to:
\n\u2022 Specify a well-formed hypothesis that is a precise, testable hypothesis appropriately expressed in terms of independent and dependent variables relevant to informationbased decisions
\n7 6 5 4 3 2 1
\n\u2022 Hypothesis is excellently formed, extremely relevant to information-based decisions and clearly testable via online crowdsourced experiment. \u2022 Hypothesis is very well formed, very relevant to information-based decisions and testable via online crowdsourced experiment.
\n\u2022 Hypothesis is well formed, relevant to information-based decisions and may be
\ntestable via online crowdsourced experiment.
\n\u2022 Hypothesis is satisfactorily formed, reasonably relevant to information-based decisions, and\/or may be difficult to test via online
\ncrowdsourced experiment.
\n\u2022 Hypothesis is not well formed and lacks relevance to informationbased decisions, and\/or may not be appropriate to be tested via online crowdsourced experiment.
\n\u2022 Hypothesis is unsatisfactory and largely irrelevant to informationbased decisions, and\/or is not appropriate to be tested via online crowdsourced experiment.
\n\u2022 Hypothesis is either missing or totally unsatisfactory
\nExperimental Design and Ethics (15% of total grade) \u2013 Ability to:
\n\u2022 Design a feasible, stepwise research methodology to appropriately address the hypothesis in a way that would provide a reasonable contribution to knowledge
\n\u2022 Demonstrate understanding of Human Research Ethics guidelines
\n7 6 5 4 3 2 1
\n\u2022 It is made obvious that completing the process will meaningfully contribute to testing the
\nhypothesis, and reasonably contribute to knowledge on the subject
\n\u2022 Design adheres to
\nHuman Research Ethics
\nHuman Written Academic Papers – Guidelines
\n\u2022 It is made very clear that completing the process will meaningfully contribute to testing the
\nhypothesis and reasonably contribute to knowledge on the subject
\n\u2022 Design adheres to
\nHuman Research Ethics
\nHuman Written Academic Papers – Guidelines \u2022 It is made clear that completing the process will meaningfully contribute to testing the
\nhypothesis and reasonably contribute knowledge to the subject \u2022 Design adheres to
\nHuman Research Ethics
\nHuman Written Academic Papers – Guidelines \u2022 It is generally clear that completing the process will meaningfully contribute to testing the
\nhypothesis and reasonably contribute knowledge to the subject \u2022 Design adheres to
\nHuman Research Ethics
\nHuman Written Academic Papers – Guidelines \u2022 It is not entirely clear how completing the process will meaningfully contribute to testing the hypothesis, and\/or is unlikely to provide a reasonable contribution to knowledge on the subject either in the way the design is constructed or executed, or due to the way the hypothesis is formed.
\n\u2022 Design does not adhere to Human
\nResearch Ethics
\nHuman Written Academic Papers – Guidelines
\n\u2022 It not at all clear how completing the process will meaningfully contribute to testing the hypothesis, and\/or is unlikely to provide a reasonable contribution to knowledge on the subject either in the way the design is constructed or executed, or due to the way the hypothesis is formed.
\n\u2022 Design does not adhere to Human
\nResearch Ethics
\nHuman Written Academic Papers – Guidelines
\n\u2022 No clear attempt was submitted to design an experiment within the guidelines.
\nContinued on next page\u2026
\nResearch Methodology (8% of total grade) \u2013 Ability to:
\n\u2022Page Paper Describe a feasible, stepwise research methodology
\n\u2022 Identify the data collection and analysis steps needed to complete the process
\n\u2022 Estimate the resources needed to complete the project
\n7 6 5 4 3 2 1
\n\u2022 A comprehensive summary of participants is presented
\n\u2022 A comprehensive – description of materials is presented
\n\u2022 The proposed research procedure is described extremely clearly, as a series of precise steps.
\n\u2022 It is made obvious that completing the process will contribute to testing the hypothesis.
\n\u2022 A mostly
\ncomprehensive summary
\nof participants is presented \u2022 A mostly comprehensive
\n– description of materials is presented
\n\u2022 The proposed research procedure is described very clearly, as a series of clear steps.
\n\u2022 It is made very clear that completing the process will contribute to testing the hypothesis.
\n\u2022 A clear summary of participants is presented, although lacks some information
\n\u2022 A clear – description of materials is presented \u2022 The proposed research procedure is described clearly, as a series of generally well-described steps.
\n\u2022 It is made clear that completing the process will contribute to testing the hypothesis. \u2022 A summary of participants is presented, although lacks some clarity and information \u2022 A – description of materials is presented, however, some clarity and information is lacking \u2022 The proposed research procedure is generally clear, but some steps need further explanation. \u2022 It is generally clear that completing the process will contribute to testing the hypothesis. \u2022 Participants involved in the study are not presented in enough
\ndetail and\/or with enough clarity
\n\u2022 Materials are not presented in enough
\ndetail and\/or with enough clarity
\n\u2022 The proposed research procedure is described weakly, or some key steps are unclear.
\n\u2022 It is not entirely clear how completing the process will contribute to testing the hypothesis. \u2022 Little detail is given about participants involved in the study \u2022 Little detail is given about materials used in study
\n\u2022 The proposed research procedure is described poorly and\/or several key steps are described inadequately.
\n\u2022 It is not at all clear that completing the process will contribute to testing the hypothesis.
\n\u2022 No useful detail is given about participants
\n\u2022 No useful detail is given about materials used in study
\n\u2022 The proposed research
\nprocedure is inadequately described.
\n\u2022 There is no convincing argument that completing the process will contribute to testing the hypothesis.
\nAnalysis & Results (10% of total grade) \u2013 The ability to:
\n\u2022 Identify an appropriate analysis method
\n\u2022 Effectively execute the analysis method
\n\u2022 Appropriately present results
\n7 6 5 4 3 2 1
\n\u2022 Analysis method used
\nis appropriate for the
\nmethodology
\n\u2022 Analysis is fully correct \u2022 Excellent presentation of results with complete detail
\n\u2022 Analysis method used is appropriate for the methodology, although a more appropriate method could have been used
\n\u2022 Analysis is largely correct
\n\u2022 Very good presentation of results with complete detail
\n\u2022 Analysis method used is mostly appropriate for
\nthe methodology
\n\u2022 Analysis is basically correct
\n\u2022 Good presentation of results with some minor
\ndetails missing
\n\u2022 Analysis method used is somewhat appropriate for the methodology
\n\u2022 Analysis is satisfactory but with some non-trivial errors
\n\u2022 Adequate presentation of results with details
\nmissing
\n\u2022 Analysis method used is applicable but not appropriate for the methodology
\n\u2022 Analysis has some significant errors \u2022 Barely satisfactory presentation of results with major detail missing
\n\u2022 Analysis method used is both inapplicable and inappropriate for the methodology
\n\u2022 Analysis is poorly executed
\n\u2022 Presentation of results is unsatisfactory
\n\u2022 No coherent analysis method is used
\n\u2022 No analysis is provided \u2022 Presentation of results
\nis incomprehensible
\nDiscussion (28% of total grade) \u2013 The ability to:
\n\u2022 Relate the results to the research topic (RT) & hypothesis
\n\u2022 Discuss the results in the context of previously referenced studies, as appropriate
\n\u2022 Identify the limitations of the study
\n\u2022 Justify the implications of the study
\n7 6 5 4 3 2 1
\n\u2022 Discussion very clearly states how the results address the hypothesis and relate to the RT \u2022 Excellent critical discussion of results in the context of previously referenced studies
\n\u2022 Significant limitations of
\nthe study are very clearly communicated
\n\u2022 Implications of the study are excellently communicated \u2013 assignment brief – creating a very clear and logical picture of the usefulness of the results, with a very high degree of novelty \u2022 Discussion clearly states how the results address the hypothesis and relate to the RT \u2022 Good critical discussion of results in the context of previously referenced studies
\n\u2022 Significant limitations of
\nthe study are clearly communicated
\n\u2022 Implications of the study are very well communicated \u2013 assignment brief – creating a clear and logical picture of the usefulness of the results, with a high degree of novelty \u2022 Discussion creditably states how the results address the hypothesis and relate to the RT
\n\u2022 Well-written discussion of results in the context of previously referenced studies, however, little evidence of critical thought
\n\u2022 Significant limitations of the study are clearly communicated, although some obvious limitations are not addressed \u2022 Implications of the study are well communicated, and the usefulness of results is made clear, with a creditable degree of novelty
\n\u2022 Discussion satisfactorily states how the results address the hypothesis and relate to the RT
\n\u2022 Adequate discussion of results in the context of previously referenced studies, however, little evidence of critical thought
\n\u2022 Some limitations of the study are communicated with adequate clarity, although some obvious limitations are not addressed
\n\u2022 Implications of the study are adequately communicated, and the usefulness of results is made somewhat clear, with a passable degree of novelty
\n\u2022 Connection made between results and hypothesis and RT is limited
\n\u2022 Limited discussion of results in the context of previously referenced studies, with little to no evidence of critical thought
\n\u2022 Some limitations of the study are communicated with some clarity, although most obvious limitations are not addressed
\n\u2022 Implications of the study are somewhat communicated; however, their usefulness is lacking clarity and novelty
\n\u2022 Connection made between results and hypothesis RT is mostly unclear
\n\u2022 Limited discussion of results in the context of previously referenced studies, however it is not clear and with little to no evidence of critical thought \u2022 Attempted
\ncommunication of
\nlimitations that are irrelevant and\/or unclear \u2022 Implications of the study are somewhat
\ncommunicated; however, their usefulness is not made clear, and with no discernible novelty
\n\u2022 Results are not related to the hypothesis and RT \u2022 No discussion of results in the context of previously referenced studies is attempted
\n\u2022 No clear limitations are communicated
\n\u2022 Little to no clear or relevant implications of the study are presented.
\nContinued on next page\u2026
\nExpression & Presentation (5% of total grade) \u2013 The ability to:
\n\u2022 use fluent language with correct grammar, spelling and punctuation
\n\u2022 use appropriate paragraph and sentence structures
\n\u2022 use appropriate style and tone of writing
\n\u2022 produce a professionally presented document
\n7 6 5 4 3 2 1
\n\u2022 Inclusion of all essential
\ncomponents of the report
\n(Title, Abstract,
\nIntroduction,
\nMethodology, Results, Discussion, References), with excellent document structure.
\n\u2022 Very clear yet concise writing throughout.
\n\u2022 Perfect use of standard grammar, spelling and punctuation.
\n\u2022 Polished professional appearance.
\n\u2022 Inclusion of all essential sections of the report
\n(Title, Abstract,
\nIntroduction,
\nMethodology, Results Discussion, References), with very good document structure.
\n\u2022 Clear yet concise writing throughout.
\n\u2022 Grammar, spelling and punctuation mainly accurate.
\n\u2022 Professional presentation.
\n\u2022 Inclusion of all essential sections of the report
\n(Title, Abstract,
\nIntroduction,
\nMethodology, Results, Discussion, References) with good document structure.
\n\u2022 Clear yet
\nconcise writing in most parts.
\n\u2022 Grammar, spelling and punctuation creditably accurate.
\n\u2022 Neat and tidy presentation.
\n\u2022 – – One missing essential section of the report
\n(Title, Abstract,
\nIntroduction,
\nMethodology, Results, Discussion, References), with generally good document structure. \u2022 Clear yet concise writing in general but with a few unclear passages. \u2022 Grammar and\/or spelling and\/or punctuation are satisfactory.
\n\u2022 Unprofessional, untidy, or unattractive presentation in a few places.
\n\u2022 Multiple missing essential sections of the report (Title, Abstract,
\nIntroduction,
\nMethodology, Results, Discussion, References), and poor document structure.
\n\u2022 Several parts of the document are either too brief and unclear or contain significant amounts of irrelevant material.
\n\u2022 Grammar and\/or spelling and\/or punctuation contain significant errors.
\n\u2022 Unprofessional, untidy, or unattractive presentation in many places.
\n\u2022 Multiple missing essential sections of the report (Title, Abstract,
\nIntroduction,
\nMethodology, Results, Discussion, References) and very poor document structure.
\n\u2022 Most parts of the document are either too brief and unclear or contain significant amounts of irrelevant material.
\n\u2022 Grammar, spelling and punctuation contain numerous and distracting errors.
\n\u2022 Unprofessional, untidy, or unattractive presentation in most places.
\n\u2022 Essential sections (Title, Abstract, Introduction,
\nMethodology, Results, Discussion, References) not present or not clearly outlined, and extremely poor document structure.
\n\u2022 Document is entirely unclear either because it is too brief and missing important points or consists of large amounts of irrelevant material.
\n\u2022 Meaning unclear throughout due to major errors in grammar, spelling and punctuation.
\n\u2022 Disorganised or incoherent writing.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Assessment Task IFN521 Foundations of Decision Science Semester 1 2023 Assessment 2 \u2013 Knowledge and Name A presentation of theory related to a selected cognitive\u2026<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[124,949,2040,2041],"tags":[4170,4092,4089,4093,1887,4000,3998,4096,2035,4094,3992,3995,4091,4119],"class_list":["post-9073","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-assessment-assignment-help","category-assessment-task-australia-assignment-help","category-i-need-someone-to-do-my-assessment-task-assignment","category-write-my-assessment-task-assignment-online","tag-assessment-task-ifn521-foundations-of-decision","tag-assignment-help-by-uks-no-1-writing-service","tag-assignment-writers-canada-university-cost","tag-assignment-writers-china-english-free-ai","tag-cheap-essay-writers","tag-get-assignments-done","tag-i-need-help-writing-my-homework","tag-in-page-paper-write-an-essay","tag-phd-essay-writers","tag-professional-assignment-writers-usa","tag-research-paper-writing-service-for-any-topic","tag-study-bay-essay","tag-uae-1-cheap-assignment-writing-service","tag-write-a-word-essay"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9073","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=9073"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9073\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":9079,"href":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9073\/revisions\/9079"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9073"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9073"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9073"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}